RealGM

PG: Tim Hardaway, Mark Price, and maybe Mookie Blaylock are the players I'm looking at . . . should mention Penny Hardaway though he never impressed me as much as he did the TV guys of his day.

Forwards: Marques Johnson and Chris Mullin would be the main scorers. Bailey Howell and Bob Dandridge also come to mind. Maybe Dave DeBusschere for defensive impact but as I have said, Paul Silas impressed me more defensively and in terms of anecdotal stories about leadership.

Bigs: Amare Stoudamire and Jerry Lucas bring great scoring and rebounding respectively but defensive questions (Neil Johnston maybe even better numbers in the weak 50s but defensively questionable too). Bill Walton has the highest peak (though that's it for true career value -- 1 year then failed to stay healthy to the playoffs the next and 1 year as a reserve role player). Maybe Yao Ming should get a mention too.

There are a lot of other good players but as we are into the last 10, that's my short list. If someone can convince me Bailey Howell is a good defender, I will consider him. If not, my top picks are Chris Mullin or Marques Johnson right now.

Last couple threads I've sort of waited around to see where popular opinion was leaning; however, I generally found myself waiting on dead air. I'm just going to go ahead and vote for the guy I'm leaning toward the most presently and see what happens. Vote for #93: Jerry Lucas.

Per 100 Possessions and Relative TS%
'64: 17.7 pts, 17.4 reb, 2.6 ast @ +9.37% rts
'65: 20.5 pts, 19.1 reb, 2.3 ast @ +7.26% rts
'66: 19.2 pts, 18.9 reb, 2.4 ast @ +1.24% rts
'67: 16.4 pts, 17.6 reb, 3.0 ast @ +1.48% rts
'68: 20.4 pts, 18.1 reb, 2.9 ast @ +6.75% rts
'69: 18.6 pts, 18.6 reb, 4.2 ast @ +9.88% rts
'70: 17.2 pts, 16.2 reb, 3.0 ast @ +4.32% rts
'71: 20.0 pts, 16.5 reb, 3.8 ast @ +4.37% rts
'72: 19.5 pts, 15.4 reb, 4.8 ast @ +4.41% rts
'73: 15.9 pts, 11.6 reb, 7.2 ast @ +4.18% rts
'74: 13.0 pts, 10.7 reb, 6.6 ast, 0.8 stl, 0.7 blk @ -2.37% rts

Extended Prime of Jerry Lucas ('64-'72)--685 rs games
Rough cumulative Per 100 poss: 18.5 to 19.0 pts, 17.5 reb, 3.0+ ast @ +5.18% rts
PER 19.3, .147 WS/48 in a whopping 41.6 mpg over that span


His scoring volume during his prime---on a per 100 basis---is basically average for the era, however on impressive shooting efficiency that ranged from "fairly good" to "hyper-elite" (was "excellent" overall for his prime). His rebounding per 100 numbers are fairly elite-level for a PF (or PF/C), especially considering the huge minutes.
Caveat in his game: his defense. He doesn't hold a particularly good reputation in that regard.

While he doesn't carry on playing a bunch of role player years, the length of (and durability within) his prime is pretty good, especially for the era.


Aside from one terrible series in '67, and a sort of meh playoff run his rookie year, he otherwise brought his A-game in the playoffs during his prime, too.
Prime Lucas Playoff adv metrics
PER 17.0, .103 WS/48 in big 42.9 mpg

Take out that one bad series in '67 (4 games), and it goes:
PER 17.4, .117 WS/48 in 42.6 mpg

Take out rookie year playoff run (10 games), too, and the remaining 30 playoff games of his prime look like this:
PER 18.5, .138 WS/48 in whopping 44.5 mpg

*Was a key player (anywhere from 2nd-best to key role player) on two Knick teams that made a finals appearance (winning one).
*Twice finished in the top 10 in the MVP vote (once in the top 5).
*He's 80th in NBA history in career WS (actually, was 77th prior to the start of the 2014/15 season).
*8-Time NBA All-Star (once MVP of that game), 3-Time All-NBA 1st Team, 2-Time All-NBA 2nd Team

Can he get any love here?

Thought about Lucas for a long time. One of the early stretch 4's, excellent rebounder and jump shooter. Problem -- he and Oscar Robertson played together for a long time and were, quite frankly, underwhelming. The Royals were not an impressive defensive team and that's generally more of an issue for bigs. When I saw him in NY, he always put in good effort on that end, but was not a shotblocker or effective help defender. Smart, good passer, had a rep for being obsessed with his own stats (of course, this was a player that memorized phone books for fun so that's probably more just his personality).

Compare to Bailey Howell for his era.

Howell played one more year and 121 more games. Lucas, however, played more minutes overall averaging 38.8mpg to Howell's 32.2. I would give the advantage here to Lucas.

Per 36, Howell outscores Lucas 21 to 16, Lucas outrebounds him 14.5 to 11.0 though some of that is positional as Lucas swung to center while Howell swung to SF, Lucas gets 3 assists to Howell's 2. Their career TS% is exactly equal (.544), Lucas was more known for his range.

Howell has superior playoff numbers, outscoring Lucas per 36, 18.5 to 13.6, and the rebounding edge almost disappears. However, this is to a large part because Lucas's teams were better in NY where he had a much smaller role both offensively and in terms of rebounding. Both lose a lot of their efficiency advantage (Howell's ts% drops to .517, Lucas's to .511).

Howell was also part of some underwhelming Detroit teams (playing with Dave DeBusschere), but then joined the late Celtic dynasty. Lucas took over the center role for injured Willis Reed in the Knicks' 73 title run.

Looking at the two statistically, I'd give Howell a slight edge. Defensively, I traditionally considered them both average to below average but have seen anecdotal arguments that Howell was a good defender; though no supporting statistical evidence (to the degree we can look at defensive numbers for that period). Lucas was consistently more recognized by his contemporaries on All-NBA awards though that may be a factor of the bigger minutes played.

I think the two are reasonably close as peers. Just thought it was an interesting comp.

penbeast0 wrote:Thought about Lucas for a long time. One of the early stretch 4's, excellent rebounder and jump shooter. Problem -- he and Oscar Robertson played together for a long time and were, quite frankly, underwhelming. The Royals were not an impressive defensive team and that's generally more of an issue for bigs. When I saw him in NY, he always put in good effort on that end, but was not a shotblocker or effective help defender. Smart, good passer, had a rep for being obsessed with his own stats (of course, this was a player that memorized phone books for fun so that's probably more just his personality).

Compare to Bailey Howell for his era.

Howell played one more year and 121 more games. Lucas, however, played more minutes overall averaging 38.8mpg to Howell's 32.2. I would give the advantage here to Lucas.

Per 36, Howell outscores Lucas 21 to 16, Lucas outrebounds him 14.5 to 11.0 though some of that is positional as Lucas swung to center while Howell swung to SF, Lucas gets 3 assists to Howell's 2. Their career TS% is exactly equal (.544), Lucas was more known for his range.

Howell has superior playoff numbers, outscoring Lucas per 36, 18.5 to 13.6, and the rebounding edge almost disappears. However, this is to a large part because Lucas's teams were better in NY where he had a much smaller role both offensively and in terms of rebounding. Both lose a lot of their efficiency advantage (Howell's ts% drops to .517, Lucas's to .511).

Howell was also part of some underwhelming Detroit teams (playing with Dave DeBusschere), but then joined the late Celtic dynasty. Lucas took over the center role for injured Willis Reed in the Knicks' 73 title run.

Looking at the two statistically, I'd give Howell a slight edge. Defensively, I traditionally considered them both average to below average but have seen anecdotal arguments that Howell was a good defender; though no supporting statistical evidence (to the degree we can look at defensive numbers for that period). Lucas was consistently more recognized by his contemporaries on All-NBA awards though that may be a factor of the bigger minutes played.

I think the two are reasonably close as peers. Just thought it was an interesting comp.

I'd caution against using Per 36 numbers, even when comparing two guys this close. Specifically between these two individuals we can note:
*the early/early-mid 60's was when the insane pace was at its zenith (Lucas largely missed that; Howell didn't).
**The early 70's is when pace began descending back to Earth (Howell largely missed that; Lucas didn't).
***Lucas fairly consistently played for slow-paced teams; Howell didn't. League rank-wise, the fastest team Lucas ever played for was ranked 9th of 14 in pace. His final three seasons with the Knicks, the teams pace rank out of 17 teams was 17th, 16th, and 17th, respectively.
****If we compare respective team paces for each year where their careers overlap (8 seasons), Howell's team played at a faster pace in 7 of 8, and was tied in the other. Of the four seasons Howell played prior to Lucas's arrival, 3 of those 4 years were at a pace faster than the single-fastest of Lucas's teams (and the other was just 0.1 behind the fastest Lucas team). The 3 seasons Lucas played after Howell retired were ALL a slower pace than the slowest Howell team (by 7.7 or more).

The average pace of Howell's teams (I didn't not weight for minutes): 120.1
The average pace of Lucas's team (again, not weighted for minutes): 113.3

....that's not insignificant. If both played somewhere around 36-40 mpg, that would amount to about 6 additional possessions per game for Howell.

Howell's another guy I've been meaning to do Per 100 estimates for. I'll try to get to that while this thread (this specific comparison) is in play.

I don't have any answers/excuses for why those early Royals teams didn't do better; I agree they underwhelmed.

The minutes difference is definitely significant, though. And I agree these two are probably not too far off from each other in the grand scheme of things.

For those who were watching during the 80s...should Pressey receive consideration for one of these last few spots? I'm not sure in which thread it was, but I do believe someone attempted to make the case that he was nearly as (or possibly more) valuable as Moncrief to those Bucks teams. Any truth to this?

Pressey stepped in and played extremely well when Moncrief's knees finally gave out. He was a solid player for a few years with good defense and playmaking but. . . . Marques Johnson and Bobby Dandridge aren't in yet just in terms of Bucks SFs and I think both were more key than Pressey.

trex_8063 wrote:Last couple threads I've sort of waited around to see where popular opinion was leaning; however, I generally found myself waiting on dead air. I'm just going to go ahead and vote for the guy I'm leaning toward the most presently and see what happens. Vote for #93: Jerry Lucas.
Can he get any love here?

For those that didn't see much of Lucas during his playing days, my observations on him are in the attached thread (posts #9 and 11).

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=838916

Samurai wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:Last couple threads I've sort of waited around to see where popular opinion was leaning; however, I generally found myself waiting on dead air. I'm just going to go ahead and vote for the guy I'm leaning toward the most presently and see what happens. Vote for #93: Jerry Lucas.
Can he get any love here?

For those that didn't see much of Lucas during his playing days, my observations on him are in the attached thread (posts #9 and 11).

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=838916

Really good stuff, thanks for sharing that.
I, for one, would like to hear his response to your question (regarding not getting blocked), as well as what he said regarding his rebounding rate in spite of his athleticism.

btw, glad I'm not the only one who mentally compares him to Kevin Love. Love seems by far the closest modern analogy, from what I can see.

trex_8063 wrote:

Samurai wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:Last couple threads I've sort of waited around to see where popular opinion was leaning; however, I generally found myself waiting on dead air. I'm just going to go ahead and vote for the guy I'm leaning toward the most presently and see what happens. Vote for #93: Jerry Lucas.
Can he get any love here?

For those that didn't see much of Lucas during his playing days, my observations on him are in the attached thread (posts #9 and 11).

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=838916

Really good stuff, thanks for sharing that.
I, for one, would like to hear his response to your question (regarding not getting blocked), as well as what he said regarding his rebounding rate in spite of his athleticism.

btw, glad I'm not the only one who mentally compares him to Kevin Love. Love seems by far the closest modern analogy, from what I can see.

His answers to those questions are in post #11 of the linked thread.

trex_8063 wrote:

Samurai wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:Last couple threads I've sort of waited around to see where popular opinion was leaning; however, I generally found myself waiting on dead air. I'm just going to go ahead and vote for the guy I'm leaning toward the most presently and see what happens. Vote for #93: Jerry Lucas.
Can he get any love here?

For those that didn't see much of Lucas during his playing days, my observations on him are in the attached thread (posts #9 and 11).

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=838916

Really good stuff, thanks for sharing that.
I, for one, would like to hear his response to your question (regarding not getting blocked), as well as what he said regarding his rebounding rate in spite of his athleticism.

btw, glad I'm not the only one who mentally compares him to Kevin Love. Love seems by far the closest modern analogy, from what I can see.

Was going to direct you to the post in the other thread (on Lucas' answers) but as that has already done ... It's somewhat tangential (just came to mind because of how you phrased it) but Lucas doesn't (didn't? what I'm about to say comes from over 20 years ago) believe in rebound rate. In Pluto's Tall Tales, as I recall, there's a quote from him saying the reason there are no 20rpg players "these days" (i.e. 25ish years ago) is because nobody wants it enough, and specifically not because there were more rebounds available in his day. I recall being shocked by a guy with such an apparent head for numbers managing to con himself like that.

Decided to look it up

You can talk about eras all you want and how guys shoot for a higher percentage today and there are fewer missed shots, but the players of my time simply wanted to rebound more and we rebounded better. I went into games expecting to get 20 rebounds. So did Wilt, Russell and Nate Thurmond. Now when a guy gets 20 rebounds, it's an event. Back then, it was just doing your job.

penbeast0 wrote:Thought about Lucas for a long time. One of the early stretch 4's, excellent rebounder and jump shooter. Problem -- he and Oscar Robertson played together for a long time and were, quite frankly, underwhelming. The Royals were not an impressive defensive team and that's generally more of an issue for bigs. When I saw him in NY, he always put in good effort on that end, but was not a shotblocker or effective help defender. Smart, good passer, had a rep for being obsessed with his own stats (of course, this was a player that memorized phone books for fun so that's probably more just his personality).

Compare to Bailey Howell for his era.

Howell played one more year and 121 more games. Lucas, however, played more minutes overall averaging 38.8mpg to Howell's 32.2. I would give the advantage here to Lucas.

Per 36, Howell outscores Lucas 21 to 16, Lucas outrebounds him 14.5 to 11.0 though some of that is positional as Lucas swung to center while Howell swung to SF, Lucas gets 3 assists to Howell's 2. Their career TS% is exactly equal (.544), Lucas was more known for his range.

Howell has superior playoff numbers, outscoring Lucas per 36, 18.5 to 13.6, and the rebounding edge almost disappears. However, this is to a large part because Lucas's teams were better in NY where he had a much smaller role both offensively and in terms of rebounding. Both lose a lot of their efficiency advantage (Howell's ts% drops to .517, Lucas's to .511).

Howell was also part of some underwhelming Detroit teams (playing with Dave DeBusschere), but then joined the late Celtic dynasty. Lucas took over the center role for injured Willis Reed in the Knicks' 73 title run.

Looking at the two statistically, I'd give Howell a slight edge. Defensively, I traditionally considered them both average to below average but have seen anecdotal arguments that Howell was a good defender; though no supporting statistical evidence (to the degree we can look at defensive numbers for that period). Lucas was consistently more recognized by his contemporaries on All-NBA awards though that may be a factor of the bigger minutes played.

I think the two are reasonably close as peers. Just thought it was an interesting comp.

OK, I got around to the Per 100 estimates for Howell.

Here again are Lucas's for reference:

Per 100 Possessions and Relative TS%
'64: 17.7 pts, 17.4 reb, 2.6 ast @ +9.37% rts
'65: 20.5 pts, 19.1 reb, 2.3 ast @ +7.26% rts
'66: 19.2 pts, 18.9 reb, 2.4 ast @ +1.24% rts
'67: 16.4 pts, 17.6 reb, 3.0 ast @ +1.48% rts
'68: 20.4 pts, 18.1 reb, 2.9 ast @ +6.75% rts
'69: 18.6 pts, 18.6 reb, 4.2 ast @ +9.88% rts
'70: 17.2 pts, 16.2 reb, 3.0 ast @ +4.32% rts
'71: 20.0 pts, 16.5 reb, 3.8 ast @ +4.37% rts
'72: 19.5 pts, 15.4 reb, 4.8 ast @ +4.41% rts
'73: 15.9 pts, 11.6 reb, 7.2 ast @ +4.18% rts
'74: 13.0 pts, 10.7 reb, 6.6 ast, 0.8 stl, 0.7 blk @ -2.37% rts

Extended Prime of Jerry Lucas ('64-'72)--685 rs games
Rough cumulative Per 100 poss: 18.5 to 19.0 pts, 17.5 reb, 3.0+ ast @ +5.18% rts
PER 19.3, .147 WS/48 in a whopping 41.6 mpg over that span



Here's how Bailey Howell's went year to year:

Per 100 Possessions and Relative TS%
'60: 22.1 pts, 13.1 reb, 1.0 ast @ +4.71 rts
'61: 23.4 pts, 14.3 reb, 2.5 ast @ +8.26 rts
'62: 21.3 pts, 13.5 reb, 2.5 ast @ +6.02 rts
'63: 24.1 pts, 12.2 reb, 3.1 ast @ +9.69 rts
'64: 25.6 pts, 11.9 reb, 3.1 ast @ +6.23 rts
'65: 21.3 pts, 12.1 reb, 2.9 ast @ +10.36 rts
'66: 22.8 pts, 12.9 reb, 2.6 ast @ +6.86 rts
'67: 25.6 pts, 10.7 reb, 1.6 ast @ +6.60 rts
'68: 22.9 pts, 11.4 reb, 1.9 ast @ +2.89 rts
'69: 24.8 pts, 11.1 reb, 2.2 ast @ +4.13 rts
'70: 20.3 pts, 10.8 reb, 2.4 ast @ -2.37 rts
'71: 22.9 pts, 11.5 reb, 3.0 ast @ +3.23 rts

Extended Prime of Bailey Howell ('61-'69)--711 rs games
Rough cumulative Per 100 poss: 23.5 pts, 12.3 reb, 2.5 ast @ +6.74 rts
PER 19.8, .193 WS/48 in 34.6 mpg


Howell does appear a clearly better scorer (and visually I've always been impressed with what I've seen of him in this regard: some mid-range touch, little bit of post-game, decent in transition, could put it on the floor, have seen him hit some kinda difficult runners, etc); and I guess I didn't realize how far ahead of the curve he was in his shooting efficiency.

However, pace adjusted (in response to my aforementioned concerns with using Per 36 numbers when comparing these two) numbers do reveal that Lucas was a pretty significantly better rebounder, even relative to position. Though Lucas played a little C, and Howell played a little SF, overall there's probably less than 1 position separating them (i.e. they were both mostly PF's). Yet there's ~5 reb/100 possessions difference between the two.

All of this should again be viewed in light of minutes, as well (7 mpg difference between their respective primes; fairly significant imo).

I remember thinking Howell looked OK defensively from what I've watched of him (basically only his Celtic days). tbh, I don't well-recall how Lucas performed defensively (I should try to find the time to watch some old games again with that focus). By reputation, he appears to be maybe a little behind Howell in this regard, although Samurai's comments make me wonder if that's justified.

Howell appears slightly less consistent than Lucas in the post-season, too (though ps is still a close comparison).

At any rate, I'm thinking I should up Howell's standing in my ATL. Whether I want to downgrade Lucas's rank and/or put Howell ahead of him.....idk about that. I'd certainly be OK supporting a different candidate (DeBusschere, Bellamy, or McGinnis would be my top other choices at this point) if popular opinion were going that way. Trouble is, there isn't really "popular opinion" to speak of, as the voter turn-out we're getting is so atrocious.

Owly wrote:.

Good to have your voice here again. Have you anything to offer in the way of a vote/candidate? The project could certainly use more turn-out these days (especially from someone with your knowledge).

I'll go back to DeBusschere. After Sikma got in, I don't see any other candidate that would be better than Dave.

Vote: Dave DeBusschere

Very versatile player - could score (not very efficiently - just about league average TS% in the 60s, but he had a pretty good range on his jumper - I saw him make 20-23 footers a lot of times, and even some shots from today's 3-point land), rebound (11 rebounds per game for his career as a 6'6'' or 6'7'', 220-225 lbs forward), quite possibly the best non-center defender of his era, good passer, very unselfish, smart, played with tremendous effort every game, and had some of the best "intangibles" of any player in NBA history. Excellent athlete, too (played in two pro leagues - NBA and briefly also in the MLB). Pretty good longevity - 10 year prime, and there are indications that he could've played a few more years on a high level, if he wanted to - in his last season, '73-'74, he averaged almost 18/11/4, and had probably the best scoring season of his career.

His advanced metrics are really mediocre, but he seems to be one of those guys who's impact goes beyond boxscore numbers. He was just a workhorse out there on the court, and he really reminds me of John Havlicek and especially Dave Cowens (Hondo is in since #30, Cowens since #52).
Also, how about the fact that DeBusschere became a player-coach at age 24? Speaks volumes about his basketball acumen and leadership qualities.

Let's take a look at the '68-'69 Knicks, as an example of DeBusschere's impact - before the Bellamy/DeBusschere trade, Knicks were 18-16, 52.9% W (with Bellamy), after the trade, they were 36-11, 76.6% W (with DeBusschere). Considering that New York didn't make any other changes to their roster (well, they also lost their backup point guard Howard Komives, who was traded to Detroit along with Bellamy), that's instant impact personified, right there.

Vote for #93 - Dave DeBusschere

As quotatious noted above, debusschere had an instant impact when he was traded to the knicks. Similarly, his absence was felt the season after he retired. In debusschere's last season, the knicks ranked 5th in the league in SRS with a trip to the conf finals. The following season, they dropped to 11th in SRS and finished 40-42. Reed had also retired, however, he only played in 19 games the season prior (NY went 10-9 in those games).

Versatile defender, great rebounder, not that efficient scoring-wise, but could hit the open jumper, find the open man and banged well inside.

Vote: Dave Debusschere

Huge, Rasheed Wallace-type impact once he went to NY in 1969. Actually compares to Sheed a little bit as a smart player with excellent defense and the ability to spread the floor from the PF position. Dave was more of a SF/PF (I've made the comparison to Dray Green before).

Could shoot, pass, defend, rebound, and made the smart play all the time. Great player and champion.

Sorry that I've missed the last few votes - I've been lost in a haze of lecturing at triple pace for my course. Holy heck is it a lot of work.

I don't have any real gripes about the guys getting in. DeBusschere and Lucas seem to be worthy candidates for this slot as well, but I'm going to throw another bone to Neil Johnston. His statistical footprint is pretty massive, even if it came over a fairly short period. I feel like guys like him and Walton might be left out due to era/longevity concerns, but both players appear to have been hugely impactful in their days, and were recognized as such with All-Star appearances and awards (including an MVP for Walton).

I'm also wondering whether Joe Dumars will get a nod at some point. Wasn't there some interest in Bill Sharman at a stage, too? I think he's well worth a look as well. Cliff Hagan, Walt Bellamy, Terry Porter, Shawn Kemp, and Vern Mikkelsen deserve some consideration as well.

I'd definitely be down for some Marques Johnson discussion in terms of those 80s Bucks teams. He was very well-regarded in his day. He probably peaked a bit too early for those Bucks teams, but he was a terror.

How about either of the Hardaways? Penny is another guy with a great but short peak, and Timbug was quite good for a long time for those who value longevity.

Is anybody thinking about Yao? Another great player lost to injuries, but man, was he good.

A guy I'd really love to get behind is Detlef Schrempf, a very versatile forward who was essentially Bird-lite for several years in the 90s.

The Blazer fan in me would love to see Porter and Buck Williams get some love, too.

As far as the guys getting votes are concerned, I'm inclined to take Jerry Lucas over DeBusschere, so if it comes to the need to switch at any stage and I'm not able to check in, I'm pretty confident in that choice. Great scorer, great rebounder (though DeBusshere was very good there too), and from what I've heard, not a terrible defender, though not noteworthy on that end. DeBusshere certainly has a better defensive reputation, but Lucas was more decorated in his day with awards and MVP consideration. Both players see a dip in playoff production, and both have some weird prime years where their teams did pretty poorly, so it seems like a wash.

Only 7 spots left, lol. That came down to a vote for Neil Johnston. And, for us Spring Break started today (free time, not sure what one does with such a thing)!

Weird note . . . flipped over to B-R.com to double check on Mullin's stats and saw his similarity score. Most similar player is . . . .


Ben Wallace?

Someone messed up their algorithm, lol.

Any case, I will put in a vote for Chris Mullin here. Best scorer left, super smart, a guy who could play for any team. Downside is slow feet/weak defense.

penbeast0 wrote:Weird note . . . flipped over to B-R.com to double check on Mullin's stats and saw his similarity score. Most similar player is . . . .


Ben Wallace?

Someone messed up their algorithm, lol.

Any case, I will put in a vote for Chris Mullin here. Best scorer left, super smart, a guy who could play for any team. Downside is slow feet/weak defense.

They list mullin as a SF/SG and wallace as a C/PF, so yeah, you’d think that’d split them, but I guess just being “forwards” keeps them together.

The similarity scores were derived using a method similar (no pun intended) to the one used by Doug Drinen over at Pro-Football-Reference.com.

It is important to note that this method does not attempt to find players who were similar in style of play. Rather, it attempts to find players whose careers were similar in terms of quality and shape. By shape, I mean things like: How many years did he play? How good were his best years compared to his worst years? Did he have a few great years and then several mediocre years, or did he have many good-but-not-great years?

Another important item to note is that players are only compared to other players who played a comparable position. In other words, guards are compared to guards and guard-forwards; forwards are compared to forwards and forward-centers; and centers are compared to centers and center-forwards. This is not always perfect, but it works well enough absent more precise positional designations.

Players with at least three years played and a career value greater than zero (see #2 below) will have two similarity tables on their player pages. The first displays the most similar players through a given year (i.e., through year n). Only the first n years of a player's career are used when computing these scores. The second displays the most similar players based on entire careers. In this case, all years are used for all players.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/similar.html

Still seems funny